Great Question

[homersapien 11,393]

This is somewhat off-topic but it explains the dilemma such a question represents.

It's not discussed much, but the real problem that underlies it is the lack of control exerted by the Republican Party.  Establishing standards (values) and qualifying candidates is the job of political parties.   The Republican Party has sacrificed their standards of civility and democratic ideals for the sake of political expediency.

For example, when the white supremacist David Duke ran for various offices as a Republican he was denounced by national and state Republican leaders, including President George H.W. Bush. 

The Republican party lacks such leadership today.  They have allowed the party to be taken over by the far right mob.  (And they have made it easier with their "winner take all" primary rules.)

The result is they are stuck with Donald Trump for their candidate, who will either be - or well on his way - to being a convicted felon by the time of the election.

And even without Trump, they have managed to allow themselves to become the closest thing to an outright fascist party than I would have imagined possible.  The "freedom" caucus is full of fascists.

As a liberal, I would just as soon it takes them decades to "right" their ship and get it back on a more democratic course.  A few decades of Democratic rule would serve the country well considering the challenges we will face.

Having said that, I think it's in the country's best long term interest to have a viable conservative party.  Trump and his MAGA supporters will never be that, for good reasons.

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by homersapien

[KansasTiger 3,248]

3 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

KansasTiger, pretty much agree with most of that.  I'll vote for DeSantis in the primary, but if the choice is Biden or Trump, it's pretty easy.  I've given up on fiscal responsibility out of either party.  They remind me of the mafia characters in Goodfellows who took over somebody's restaurant and then they charged booze and food until the guy went bankrupt. That's our Congress. Our currency will be worthless before they are finished. Just plan for inflation; no way to stop it now.  All Congress really cares about is separating us from our money and getting it to their donors. 

I am actively preparing for our currency, soon to be CBDC's, to devalue greatly over time. I'd like to be preparing faster, but I don't make enough if this almost worthless currency to do that, yet...

Just imagine how much inflation we will have when they can press a button and control the money supply electronically. All while monitoring and possibly controlling what you spend your digital currency on. 

There, am I crazy enough yet, @TexasTiger?

[TexasTiger 12,964]

21 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I am actively preparing for our currency, soon to be CBDC's, to devalue greatly over time. I'd like to be preparing faster, but I don't make enough if this almost worthless currency to do that, yet...

Just imagine how much inflation we will have when they can press a button and control the money supply electronically. All while monitoring and possibly controlling what you spend your digital currency on. 

There, am I crazy enough yet, @TexasTiger?

You’re edging up fast! 

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

4 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I'm not so sure your stomach can handle the answer he may give you. 

People always say “I don’t read or follow mainstream media” with pride thinking that alone makes them seem intelligent or free thinking, but IMO it usually just means they are mostly  uninformed or follow highly partisan, non journalistic sources (not always, but more often than not a self described ‘free thinker’ just ends up being someone who gets ‘told’ what to believe by YouTube videos or a activist podcast or something off of some random guys Substack blog), and they don’t ever try and verify what they are told or understand the possible opposing views or information. 
 

their goal seems to always be to believe the opposite of whatever they think Mainstream media is pushing or ‘wants’ them to believe and they’ll always find some source or information that will conform with what they are looking for. 

 

being informed isn’t about what news you don’t read or listen to, it’s about getting news from a variety of sources, recognizing specific biases any given source may have and being ready and willing to Adapt to new or changing information. 
 

 

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

People always say “I don’t read or follow mainstream media” with pride thinking that alone makes them seem intelligent or free thinking, but IMO it usually just means they are mostly  uninformed or follow highly partisan, non journalistic sources (not always, but more often than not a self described ‘free thinker’ just ends up being someone who gets ‘told’ what to believe by YouTube videos or a activist podcast or something off of some random guys Substack blog), and they don’t ever try and verify what they are told or understand the possible opposing views or information. 
 

their goal seems to always be to believe the opposite of whatever they think Mainstream media is pushing or ‘wants’ them to believe and they’ll always find some source or information that will conform with what they are looking for. 

 

being informed isn’t about what news you don’t read or listen to, it’s about getting news from a variety of sources, recognizing specific biases any given source may have and being ready and willing to Adapt to new or changing information. 
 

 

Right? 
 

“I don’t follow msm”

*watches Alex Jones instead 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 it’s about getting news from a variety of sources, recognizing specific biases any given source may have

 

Something tells me that we would have wildly differing opinions on what this means when it comes to sources. In my experience thus far, most liberals on here think msm is middle to middle left at worst. In other words, I dont think you can accuratley recognize bias in media, and youd probably say the same for me.

Let's ask @AUDevil@Cardin Drake and others what they think of the biases on your msm sources. In the end, MSM is the other side of the misinformation coin that Alex Jones is on. Both are propaganda with very little journalism.

Edited June 14, 2023 by KansasTiger

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

Something tells me that we would have wildly differing opinions on what this means when it comes to sources. In my experience thus far, most liberals on here think msm is middle to middle left at worst. In other words, I dont think you can accuratley recognize bias in media, and youd probably say the same for me.

Let's ask @AUDevil@Cardin Drake and others what they think of the biases on your msm sources. In the end, MSM is the other side of the misinformation coin that Alex Jones is on. Both are propaganda with very little journalism.

So that's why I asked earlier and didn't get a response,  where are you people actually getting your news and information?

You say all the mainstream media are biased to the left and cant be trusted......ok...so what news sources do you all read or listen to that are apparently so unbiased and full of truth that all the rest of us are missing out on?

 

 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

56 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

So that's why I asked earlier and didn't get a response,  where are you people actually getting your news and information?

You say all the mainstream media are biased to the left and cant be trusted......ok...so what news sources do you all read or listen to that are apparently so unbiased and full of truth that all the rest of us are missing out on?

 

 

I get alot of my news from the No Agenda Show. They don't deal in reporting news as much as they deconstruct what's being reported in MSM. It, combined with the pandemic onset, opened my eyes to the bias, outright lies, corporate money behind news (and how you can't have unbiased news with advertisers), and how the news sources much of its info.

[Mikey 16,643]

15 hours ago, RunInRed said:

 

None that I care about. That's why I prefer some other Pubbie nominee. However, should Trump be the nominee I'll happily vote for him over any liberal Democrat that's on their ticket.

[Mikey 16,643]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

The Republican Party has sacrificed their standards for civility......

So you think Pelosi tearing up a copy of Trump's state of the union address was an example of civility? That's funny.

[RunInRed 16,438]

18 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Border control.

DeSantis or whoever you don’t think would make “border control” a priority?  Only Trump would/could?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

So you think Pelosi tearing up a copy of Trump's state of the union address was an example of civility? That's funny.

How about Maxine Waters encouraging people to publicly harass GOP politicians while they eat in restaurants and walk in the halls? Or half the stuff the 'squad' says? Pretty sure if they want to talk antisemitism, they need to kick Ilhan Omar out of the party before they can keep claiming to support that cause. There's examples of loss a civility on all sides, they just don't get to hear about it because of the clearly unbiased media.

[RunInRed 16,438]

 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, RunInRed said:

 

Hope not. Not saying Trump is the answer but the old GOP was a worthless, spineless fascimile of the Democrat party that knew how to talk a good campaign then spend your money, finance endless war, and take away your rights behind your back once elected. To be clear, this new GOP isn't much better.

At this point I feel like half the people who support trump just want an alternative to the endless cycle of single party politics dressed up in superficial social arguing points. And thats my fear for DeSantis. He's a return to old party way things were, good ole Koch funded GOP politics dressed up in anti wokeism.

I want someone to change this system that's obviously driving American society into the ground, break the wheel. Many thought that would be Trump because he's outside of the system, and the more the system hates him the more those people feel validated he is the right choice. But I personally lost hope on that a while ago. 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

1 hour ago, RunInRed said:

DeSantis or whoever you don’t think would make “border control” a priority?  

Yes. I didn't read your question carefully enough.

[RunInRed 16,438]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

Hope not. Not saying Trump is the answer but the old GOP was a worthless, spineless fascimile of the Democrat party that knew how to talk a good campaign then spend your money, finance endless war, and take away your rights behind your back once elected. To be clear, this new GOP isn't much better.

At this point I feel like half the people who support trump just want an alternative to the endless cycle of single party politics dressed up in superficial social arguing points. And thats my fear for DeSantis. He's a return to old party way things were, good ole Koch funded GOP politics dressed up in anti wokeism.

I want someone to change this system that's obviously driving American society into the ground, break the wheel. Many thought that would be Trump because he's outside of the system, and the more the system hates him the more those people feel validated he is the right choice. But I personally lost hope on that a while ago. 

I wish the new/old GOP would lean far more into fiscal responsibility and economic growth than social issues ("wokeism") but doesn't seem to be the case.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, RunInRed said:

I wish the new/old GOP would lean far more into fiscal responsibility and economic growth than social issues ("wokeism") but doesn't seem to be the case.

I dont disagree with you there. I do get why some people in the party are concerned over social issues though, and it makes for an easy attention grabbing headline/exploit by party leaders. The left is pushing so hard, that its starting to bring social issues to the front for many. Fortunately, I live in an area and state where that's mostly kept away from my children so far. But if I was in the thick of it, I might have a different view.

However, in the end, people need to raise their families and take responsibility for their children's education inside and out of school, too. The quicker people learn we are not legislating our way back to pre 2010 the better. Don't rely on the govt to fix your problems.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

We are all distracted from the reality of what politics really is,,, class warfare.  When things get bad enough, when inequality is severe enough, maybe we will become more progressive.

At some point, we will have to understand what a financialized economy means in contrast to a production economy.  At some point, we will learn that a government that is so openly for sale, will serve the limited interests of those who can afford to buy that government.

The border, homosexuals/transsexuals, the debt, DJT,,, none of these are real issues.  All are distractions.  The real issues are a government that is for sale and, the extreme inequality that dynamic creates.

We have been pushing politically right for the past 50 years.  We have put the interests of business/capital ahead of the interests of society at large.  Good government balances the interests of capital and society, capital and labor, not allowing either to achieve domination.

Our devout faith in capitalism has been turned into a devout faith in the capitalists.  We are not educated enough to understand that the greed of the capitalists is the real threat to capitalism.  We are woefully under educated when considering what that means in a financially dominated economy.

Inequality is the issue.  Inequality is the force that leads to civil disruption, societal breakdown.  Inequality is a fundamental inhumanity that leads to wars, to revolutions, to radical ideas, reactions.

The real conspiracy happens openly, right in front of us.  We a systematically divided in order to keep us from being a unified force that demands the restoration of the "government of the people", a nation of balanced, not concentrated power.  We have allowed capitalism to be turned upside down.  The capitalists no longer compete, they have absolute control.  We compete for the favor of the capitalists.

Politics is like driving a car.  You do not always steer left or, right.  You have to know where you are, where you are going.  This idea of being perpetually left, always a Democrat, being always right, perpetually a Republican is utterly stupid.  We have been trained/conditioned to be stupid.

Whether Republican or Democrat, we should all be demanding policy that promotes greater equality.  In the end, even the wealthy will be wealthier.  They just will not have as much political power.

 

 

[Randman5000 4,229]

Kennedy is incredibly liberal. I find it comical that he would be pulled for on the right. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

10 minutes ago, Randman5000 said:

Kennedy is incredibly liberal. I find it comical that he would be pulled for on the right. 

It would be funny if he got elected and started pushing very environmentally friendly policies, only for the conservatives who wanted him to go into full environmental woke panic. 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, Randman5000 said:

Kennedy is incredibly liberal. I find it comical that he would be pulled for on the right. 

Well first off, many that might support Kennedy aren't on the traditional right. Your problem is you're still thinking about this in old conventions, in left and right.

When it comes to left and right issues, I'm convinced electing X or Y candidate doesnt make a hill of beans difference. Not in the long run. 'Rupublicans could hold all three branches and guess what, spending would still be out of control, we'd still be in endless wars, and they'd find reasons not to make progress on any of the stuff they supposedly care about, like always. So I choose to view things differently.

Kennedy has a better grasp than any candidate to date about how corrupt Washington is, and how corporations and big Pharma/big Ag/Military Industrial Complex/Etc. leverage that corruption to get what they want in policy. This interaction between corporations and Washington and the media is what I believe drives the downward spiral of America at its core. The media lies because they get money to lie. Politicians lie and twist the truth because they have people that will benefit from those lies paying them money. I thought Trump understood this dynamic, but he did a miserable job addressing it if he truly understood it at all. 

Kennedy has spent time fighting this already, and I believe he understands it. There are people on here who call him anti-vax, but that's just not doing any research. That's MSM smearing based on funding from Big Pharma, who can't stand him. He supports vaccines that are well researched, tested, and effective.

Who knows if he can do anything about any of this, but I'll take a shot.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

11 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Well first off, many that might support Kennedy aren't on the traditional right. Your problem is you're still thinking about this in old conventions, in left and right.

When it comes to left and right issues, I'm convinced electing X or Y candidate doesnt make a hill of beans difference. Not in the long run. 'Rupublicans could hold all three branches and guess what, spending would still be out of control, we'd still be in endless wars, and they'd find reasons not to make progress on any of the stuff they supposedly care about, like always. So I choose to view things differently.

Kennedy has a better grasp than any candidate to date about how corrupt Washington is, and how corporations and big Pharma/big Ag/Military Industrial Complex/Etc. leverage that corruption to get what they want in policy. This interaction between corporations and Washington and the media is what I believe drives the downward spiral of America at its core. The media lies because they get money to lie. Politicians lie and twist the truth because they have people that will benefit from those lies paying them money. I thought Trump understood this dynamic, but he did a miserable job addressing it if he truly understood it at all. 

Kennedy has spent time fighting this already, and I believe he understands it. There are people on here who call him anti-vax, but that's just not doing any research. That's MSM smearing based on funding from Big Pharma, who can't stand him. He supports vaccines that are well researched, tested, and effective.

Who knows if he can do anything about any of this, but I'll take a shot.

You just want a populist candidate that fights corporate corruption. Right on man. I think that would serve the country well. I don't think it's a reality we will see for a long time, though, because those types of candidates are normally labeled with the "socialist" tags. 

A great start to moving in that direction would absolutely be to get corporate lobbyists out of politics and to do that, there has to be a large enough number of congresspeople who are willing to legislate that into law. Which I don't think will ever happen. 

So we are probably just going to go down this greedy slimy shi**y road until the nation destroys itself. 

 

 

Or. You can be my Kevin Nash and we can fire up the band! nWo 4 Life brotherrrrrr

Edited June 14, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[KansasTiger 3,248]

2 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

You just want a populist candidate that fights corporate corruption. Right on man. I think that would serve the country well. I don't think it's a reality we will see for a long time, though, because those types of candidates are normally labeled with the "socialist" tags. 

A great start to moving in that direction would absolutely be to get corporate lobbyists out of politics and to do that, there has to be a large enough number of congresspeople who are willing to legislate that into law. Which I don't think will ever happen. 

So we are probably just going to go down this greedy slimy shi**y road until the nation destroys itself. 

 

 

Or. You can be my Kevin Nash and we can fire up the band!

Scary thought, us agreeing and teaming up on an issue! I always preffered Scott Hall, but man do I still enjoy your references.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

Scary thought, us agreeing and teaming up on an issue! I always preffered Scott Hall, but man do I still enjoy your references.

People can find common ground. Or at least they used to be able to. Politics has become so f'ing tribal. I fully believe that from an economic standpoint, most people all want the same end goal. Nobody wants to live in a corporate oligarchy with massive wealth inequality, except rich people. What's really dividing American's is social distractions. I think that finding common ground on that is doable, but social progression is a real thing that people are going to have to accept. It's not feasible to take away rights that have already been given to people. I think that is where Americans are going to struggle and be easily divided. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

9 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

 I always preffered Scott Hall,

Scott Hall was just so scarce during that era. Dude had some massive drug problems. I remember that he would randomly show up for a match or two and then be drugged out so bad he had to leave again. 

I was giving you the one who had his sh*t together, you complainer! haha